So has anyone caught the hobbit at 48fps yet?

Amr Rahmy said:
i said is the hardware can do it
Click to expand...

Source? I agree the hardware can do 720p60 within spec, but not 1080p48. Currently Blu-ray spec doesn't even do 1080p30!

they can upgrade the firmware and put it in the specs, we are in version 4 or so by now
Click to expand...

Now, it's not quite that simple. Do you even understand pulldown? How would that work so that it doesn't require people to upgrade their TV sets?

3d was not introduced with blu ray was it, they make changes to the specs when needed that's why the firmware is upgrade-able
Click to expand...

They added to the profile, sure, but that doesn't mean there wasn't any anticipation of 3D. Even if there wasn't though, adding in 3D is child's play compared to doing 3D @ 48fps.

i can tell you ps3 can play video files up to 60 including 48 fps no problem.
Click to expand...

1080p video or 720p video? You should make that distinction. I would be very surprised if the PS3 can play 1080p60. On top of that, the PS3 is quite a different beast than most stand alone Blu-ray players.

i'll post about all the details, hat's, eyes, creatures, buildings, background, lighting, blocking, ...etc., later.
Click to expand...

I won't hold my breath.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N3D
Saw it. Didn't like it at all. Thought any kind of fast action looked cartoonish. Some of the wide shots did look pretty cool... i'll give it that.

Also, maybe it was just my theater, but the highlight rolloff looked very video-ish. Reminded me of my old HVX-200's way of highlight rolloff... where it would go from bright, to a very ugly yellow, to blown out.
 
Do we know how they made the 24fps 2D print? Just a quick re-render of the HFR version data into 'standard' format, or something more complicated/ It was presumably a fairly automated process, given PJ was still fiddling with the final edit less than a week out from the premiere.
 
gary, you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. and you are attacking and trolling me for the sake of it.and i specifically said 720p 60 and 720p 48.

and i'm a computer science major and have made graphics,video, composite plugins for video and images in the past. i know what can work and how to implement it.

and you already stepped into the "it looks like a tv production", look at the characteristics of lighting and cameras they use and what differentiate these from what was used on lord of the rings trilogy.

before you ask for any other clarifications, you need to prove that every point is wrong first. keep the discussion civil and stop with the personal attacks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N3D
Amr, you are using terminology in ways that don't make any sense. I'm asking for clarification in order to understand whether you have a valid point about technical aspects of the film, or are just tossing around terminology to impress others. So far, your responses have been firming up the latter.
 
Amr Rahmy said:
and i'm a computer science major and have made graphics,video, composite plugins for video and images in the past. i know what can work and how to implement it.
Click to expand...

A lot of us understand how we could implement nonstandard formats and effects -- the problem is that in the real world, you need to adapt to the existing infrastructure of playback systems and standards in order for others to be able to view what you have done. Or, put the knowledge you've gained in school to work forging new standards and techniques, and getting them widely accepted -- a long, slow, hard process that generally takes the capital and influence of large companies and which an individual student has little hope of accomplishing early in their career. Even then, those who do the engineering are unlikely to be the same people who create the movies we view on it.

- Greg
 
awelgraven said:
Also, maybe it was just my theater, but the highlight rolloff looked very video-ish. Reminded me of my old HVX-200's way of highlight rolloff... where it would go from bright, to a very ugly yellow, to blown out.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. My showing just seemed really bright too. Perhaps the film was intentionally brightened to counter the common complaint that 3D is too dark.

Amr, I would also agree with almost everything you said. I don't want to get into technical specifics, but somehow this blockbuster just seemed sloppier overall than it should have been. I wonder if the next two episodes will be any different since there is more time.

I still liked it tho...
 
  • Like
Reactions: N3D
no gary, saying that you don't see clipped CGI skies and CGI windows out of windows does not make any sense. what i said was valid whether you like it or understand it. and if you did not understand something, it does not disprove anything i say, the world does not revolve around you, a lot of other posters on this and other threads agreed to what i said or most of it or said similar comments about the movie, including a lot of average joes and lord of the rings fans or super nerdy fans that love everything lord of the rings.

and no greg, we are not disusing what i would implement or change in the specs(i made business and medical systems in the past, it's not hard to make and register specs branded as x or y), the point was, i understand how it works and know what can be changed or added to make 720p 48 in the specs, it's possible, and 3d was added with one or two big Hollywood titles, maybe just the one, and the hobbit is now 3 movies and Cameron is also pushing the same movement and a new player is about to hit the market with or shortly after the launch of the new Sony and Microsoft gaming consoles. we are not talking about what i can diy, we are not talking about me, we were talking about a standard made to service movies on whatever form that movie is marketed. if Cameron asked for a new player standard for 48 or 60 fps in mind, they will implemented and it's not a big deal to develop.

i was not attacking the film for the sake of attacking, from what i have seen so far, i like the work of concept artists, i think they put a lot of work and effort and love and soul into their work, i like the fact that they build part of an entire town, it looked great. i like the fact that an epic adventure is produced today, i don't like and overuse of cg and sound stage sets, the could have filmed more in (scotland?) or whereever they film some parts of the film, i think the cinematography took a backseat for 3d and making everything in the middle off center, i don't like the fact that too much of the action is 100% CGI some of it is conceived entirely with 3d in mind, along with the points pointed in this and the other thread here in dvxuser.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N3D
Saw the 2D version today, and as far as cinematography goes, it was absolutely great - no apparent problems with colour grading or exposure etc etc to my eyes. Re comments above from other posters, I do wonder if different cinemas have their equipment configured individually, especially for brightness and contrast, to suit that operator's subjective 'best' settings. This would seem particularly likely with new technology like HFR - "No, Bob, it still don't look right, twiddle the knobs a bit more" kind of thing :) Sort of a higher tech version of the way the same DVD can look completely different shown on two different TVs.
 
Yeah, which is why specific examples instead of mere assertion would have been helpful. But I think it's quite apparent now that the "issues" mentioned aren't a realistic criticism.
 
Amr, have you seen the film? The entire film, not just the trailers?

I got the impression from your first post here that you haven't seen the film.

I don't think you understand the things you are talking about as well as you think you do, either.
 
not to be insulting, but just from the way you form conclusions, your iq is not even in the 3 digits, it's no where near the same class even if you double it.

if you are defending the movie blindly, there is no reason for me to go into details or clarify anything, if some people will start to blame imaginary projection problems and unjustifiably nullify any comparisons between to images in the same format on the same site, or two video files in the same format from the same source, it's not an adult discussion.

and i already talked about the tv shutter and eng camera characteristics compared to what lord of the rings team used in the original trilogy, and the criticisms are shared among most viewers and fans of lord of the rings.

if you said what you have to say already, move on with the discussion.
 
I saw the film in 2d 48fps at the midnight release, and here are my two cents:

-I did not feel the motion was anything unnaturalistic. Yes, we were all used to the way motion works with 24 or 30, but it didn't look artificial to me

-That being said, live-action combined with cg looked terribly artificial a lot of the time, not a fault of the cinematographer or lighting or any of that non-sense. I really think that for a project of that scale, and that much cg, you just can't make every shot perfect without unlimited time and resources. If you don't believe me, go watch the original trilogy and tell me you don't see the same thing. Watched it a few nights ago, and some shots, green screen looks horrendous, where-as important shots, or visually striking ones (such as the balrog sequence in the fellowship of the ring) look absolutely phenomenal. obviously the skills and abilities are there, but with so much cg, not every shot can look that fantastic.

-To go with that last comment, the pale orc as well as gollum sequences looked outstanding in 48, really immersed you in the story.

-With double the frames, there is double the information and detail, no mind perception, you get what you get, so I think makeup and color and all that really showed its flaws with 48, but that doesn't mean it didn't have its grand moments. The fact that a relatively fast crane move or tracking shot could be achieved without that god-forsaken motion blur ever-present in 24 was a vast improvement. This advantage alone I think will help propel this new format forward.

It's late, so that's all I can come up with right now, let me know your thoughts.

P.S. - This goes out to anyone who doesn't "appreciate" lord of the rings, or summarizes it as "a lot of walking," Having just rewatched the trilogy, it is anything but slow, yes it is very long (i even watched extended), but it is will paced with action-sequences, character development, and story arc. Jackson did a phenomenal job translating the trilogy, and essentially recreating a whole new world in utmost detail. When people say it drags, it really bothers me, because to really absorb the epicness and feeling of middle earth, you need that pacing, and that story. When it comes to The Hobbit, most of the critic reviews talking about being far too long and adding up to nothing. My opinion? Yeah the beginning was a little slow, but that's acceptable when you are about to start this epic quest, and you know none of the characters (nor really their race), and it's interactions like bilbo's house that really get you to know each individual character. Chop it up, and yes, you'll get to the journey quicker, but you'll care less about the characters enduring when you haven't developed with them long enough. And that bit about adding up to nothing? Ludicrous. It's part one of three, you aren't going to be completely satisfied, and I feel that, just like the original trilogy, the film is broken up well in regards to character interaction, action, and prime story, and the ending is plenty satisfying, leaving you in want of the second part.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top